One of the main focuses of John Rawls Veil of Ignorance is removing yourself from the situation and making an unbiased decision that makes the most sense for everyone involved in the situation. Rawls' Veil of Ignorance "asks readers to decide what rules of distributive justice should apply to society" (Sanger & Rossiter, 2011, p.380). This means that before making a decision, you must put yourself in the shoes of every person involved to try to find a solution that benefits everyone equally.
If I were in the situation of the editor and had a to fix an overtime problem the first step for me would be to completely remove myself from the equation and make an objective decision by considering the impact that my decision would make on everyone …show more content…
Utilizing Rawls' Veil of Ignorance does, however, help us justify the decision-making process. One positive of my decision is pleasing the publisher by cutting down on overtime hours, which will benefit everyone that works beneath him. This decision could also boost company morale, which could improve the overall product that is produced each day. Negative consequences could also be a result of my decision. The first major negative is that the sports section could suffer from the decision. The readers could also stray away from the paper because of the …show more content…
The current sports editor is already well-liked by the community. Over the past few years that he has worked for the newspaper, he has established a good working relationship with local coaches and schools. This is where using the Veil of Ignorance gets a little tricky. I have to also consider members of the community, and what would be the best thing for them. Some members of the community might be more understanding than others. Of course, the next person that is hired for the position could be in good standing with the community, but that is not something that is guaranteed. At this point, I realized "the application of the ‘veil of ignorance’ yields “better” as an answer" (Tremmel, 2013, p.498). In this situation, I can only choose what I think would be the better choice for all parties involved because someone would have to get the short end of the stick. Although I think that the community will eventually have the same relationship with the new sports editor, the current sports editor is now out of a job. The only reason that I am able to justify this negative, is because there is a possibility that the current sports editor could get a better job that can afford to pay him for working so many extra hours. That seems idealistic, but that is still not
If I were in the situation of the editor and had a to fix an overtime problem the first step for me would be to completely remove myself from the equation and make an objective decision by considering the impact that my decision would make on everyone …show more content…
Utilizing Rawls' Veil of Ignorance does, however, help us justify the decision-making process. One positive of my decision is pleasing the publisher by cutting down on overtime hours, which will benefit everyone that works beneath him. This decision could also boost company morale, which could improve the overall product that is produced each day. Negative consequences could also be a result of my decision. The first major negative is that the sports section could suffer from the decision. The readers could also stray away from the paper because of the …show more content…
The current sports editor is already well-liked by the community. Over the past few years that he has worked for the newspaper, he has established a good working relationship with local coaches and schools. This is where using the Veil of Ignorance gets a little tricky. I have to also consider members of the community, and what would be the best thing for them. Some members of the community might be more understanding than others. Of course, the next person that is hired for the position could be in good standing with the community, but that is not something that is guaranteed. At this point, I realized "the application of the ‘veil of ignorance’ yields “better” as an answer" (Tremmel, 2013, p.498). In this situation, I can only choose what I think would be the better choice for all parties involved because someone would have to get the short end of the stick. Although I think that the community will eventually have the same relationship with the new sports editor, the current sports editor is now out of a job. The only reason that I am able to justify this negative, is because there is a possibility that the current sports editor could get a better job that can afford to pay him for working so many extra hours. That seems idealistic, but that is still not